Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1887-01-07

|
do in the premises was to provide rules
and regulations under which such Sc
dcnce thereof made of record and pre-
served.
Nor can | agree with the position OF
the Government as to the second pro-
position, as III my opinion, the act con-
templated that whenever the land
within the granted limits was earned
by the completion and acceptance OF
any section OF the road, then the right
to select lieu lands to make good,
losses as to that section become as
perfect us the right to the lands within
the granted limits; and as the right to
the company to the lands within such
limits opposite any completed section
OF the road, upon its acceptance by
the President, not only seems clear,
from the terms of the act, but has also
been so often recognized by the Prcsi-
dent and other executive officers Of
| the Government and by the courts of
the United States, including the Su-
prcmc Court, that it is no longer an
open question, it must follow that the
right to select indemnity lands, also
accrues section by section, and is not
suspended until the whole road is COM
pleted. The allegations of the answer
then are sufficient to show a regular
selection of the lands in question.
This brings me to the more impor-
tant question.
Was there grant OF lands to the
Northern Pacific Railroad Company
to aid in the construction of that part
OF its main line between Portland and
the Sound?
The determination OF this question
involves the Interpretation of three
acts of Congress, to-wit: The act of
July ID, 1864; the joint resolution Of
April 10, 1869, and the joint resolution
of May 81, 1870.
1t is claimed on the part Of the COM
pany, that, under the act of July I'd,
1864, which is the original act Of in
corporation, it was authorized to To-
cate its main line on the most eligible
route, to be determined by it, north Of
the 10th parallel and within the Uni
ted States, and it has alleged in its
answer that the route by the way Of
the Columbia River Valley and in
cluding the line from Portland to the
Sound, was determined upon and Sc
lected by said Company as such most
eligible route and its main line Of rail
road constructed thereon, and its coun-
sci contends that the line in question
having been thus constructed, under
the provisions of such original act, Il
right to the lands granted by such act
accrued by virtue thereof to the line
in question, the same as to any other
part of its main line without the aid
of the joint resolution of May 3lst,
1870. And there is much force in
the position, and there could be no
doubt of its correctness were it not
for the fact that said original act pro-
vided for a branch line down the Col
umbia, which would Indicate that it
did not contemplate the location of the
main line in that locality, and doubt
less it was supposed by Congress at
the time it passed the act, that the
most eligible route to the Sound would
be north of the valley of the Colum-
bia and hence the provision for this
branch line, so that there should not
onlv be railroad communication with
the Sound, but also with Portland,
the principal city Of the northwest.
But was it the intention to limit the
discretion Of the company i'll the loca-
ton of it's main line by giving it the
right to build this branch ?
The primary object of the lcgisla-
ton was to secure railroad to the
Sound, and the secondary, one to Port
land, hence the main line and a branch
were authNized. Now it was found
by the company that such primary OBJ
jcct could be best accomplished by the
selection of this Columbia River
route for its main line, and that by
such selection, not only was such
primary object best subserved, but also
the secondary object above stated
fully accomplished without the ex-
pense to the Government and the com
pany, of the construction of said
branch line. am therefore disposed
to think that such location of the
main line was authorized by said orig
inal act of Incorporation, though OF
course, by such location of the main
line, the right to build said branch
line under such original act was
waived and lost
This is an interesting question, and
were its determination absolutely nee
essary in this case, | would discuss il
further, but as it is not / leave it will
the above suggestion and will consider
the effect of the two joint resolution.
. above referred to upon the question
which am now discussing, and first
as to the one OF April 10th, 1869.
This simply authorized the company
under certain limitations therein ex
pressed, to extend its branch line from
: Portland to the Sound.